Coach Chud Fired
-
ClevFan,
That's what it all comes down to: Does a new coach get to waste a year or years trying to get the components together to improve a team, or is he expected to begin improving the team right away. Now, you and I agreed on Mangini in the other thread. I think he should have gotten more time. However, I thought at the time (I don't remember the details now) that Mangini was headed in a positive direction, and SOMETHING made me think that. Nothing made me feel like Chud was moving things in a positive direction this year. To me, the best that he offered was a claim that he might be able to improve things after a year or more, but that he had no improvements to offer this year.
I'm not in love with the idea of firing a coach after just one year. However, I do think that a new coach is immediately responsible for showing SOME signs of at least the POTENTIAL for improvement. There has got to be some middle ground between "immediately turned the team around" and "took the year off to wait for the draft". I felt like, at best, even if he was going to eventually build a great team, Chud took the year off and waited for the draft.
Maybe there's no explaining what the front office did this year. If there is an explanation though, I think it was that they were prepared for the team to not be good and for it to take some time for the team to become competitive, but that they wanted to at least see SOME sign of potential improvement, and all they got was, "Well, maybe when and if I get a great QB we'll start to get better."
Oh, and Skinsfan,... Hoyer started Week 3 (yes, ahead of Campbell) after Weeden got hurt in Week 2. I don't think we can definitively say when Chud would have replaced Weeden if he hadn't hurt his thumb in Week 2. What we can say is that all three played in the pre-season, and Weeden got the Week 1 and 2 starts.
-
Then Chudzinski flat out lied about it. I heard him say out of his own mouth that Richardson was traded because he didn't fit his (CHUDZINSKI'S [he said "my"]) system.
Then Chudzinski flat out lied about it. I heard him say out of his own mouth that Richardson was traded because he didn't fit his (CHUDZINSKI'S [he said "my"]) system.
I can't recall Chud ever saying that. Nor can I find any textual evidence of it either. As a matter of fact, the only evidence I can find seems to point in the direct opposite of what you claim.
From the press conference following Richardson's trade:
On whether Trent Richardson fit into the Rob Chudzinski/Norv Turner offense, and whether the trade reflected that notion: (Rob Chudzinski) No, not at all. It really had nothing to do with Trent from that standpoint.
On clarifying the earlier question about whether the trade means that Richardson doesnt fit the offense: (Rob Chudzinski) Well, the question was whether he fit the offense. It really has nothing to do with Trent from that standpoint. The opportunity as an organization was there for us to have a chance to get better, ultimately, and I felt like it was the right decision overall.
On whether the trade potentially comes too early in the season: (Joe Banner)As Coach just said, this was more about the moment that presented itself based on the situation the Colts found themselves in. It wasnt something where we could say, Can you wait three weeks and let us think about this or learn more? We had to decide whether we thought it was a move that would make us better, and we had to make that decision now. We decided to move forward.
On whether the Browns expect Richardson to play better with the Colts given the quality of players around him: (Joe Banner) I just think Trents a really good player, so I think he would have done really well here, and I think hes going to do really well there. Thats at least my opinion.
I'm sorry, but you're just wrong.
-
The reasons for Chud's termination can be found here, as can a couple of historical facts that should give us some hope for Cleveland's future.
http://factoryofsadness.sportsblog.com/posts/239409/chudzinski_fired_a_closer_look.html
-
It's like a divorce, while it's horribly tough, it's better for everyone to do it quickly so everyone can move on and improve their lives. Yes the FO hired him and fired him quickly, but at least they didn't drag out their mistake for several seasons.
It's like a divorce, while it's horribly tough, it's better for everyone to do it quickly so everyone can move on and improve their lives. Yes the FO hired him and fired him quickly, but at least they didn't drag out their mistake for several seasons.
I've been divorced... this is worse...
I would take 3 Steelers fans to take your place on this board than have to read the dumb shit you make us read.
Thank you, ED...
Im sorry I think a lot of you who are happy about this firing really dont know what your talking about. I pray the Redskins hire Chud as the head coach of the Skins immediately. I think hes the next great coach out there. If Brian Hoyer doesnt get injured the Browns would have won the division. I cant believe they only gave Chud 1 year. Its just a shame.
For goodness sake he made Jason Campbell look good at times.
Good to see you again... Thanks for the objective view, just please do not send Shanahan our way.
I think it is important to keep in mind that Chud's first choice at QB when the season started was Weeden, not Hoyer.
Based on practice and pre-season, it was a more than understandable decision.
How about a little credit for leap-frogging Hoyer over Campbell when Wheezy went down? Or was that a bad decision as well?
-
TCPO,
You have evidence and I don't, so I'll have to defer to you. I'm positive I heard Chudzinski say that Richardson didn't fit the type of offense they wanted to run and I have the emails that I sent to friends right after I heard that. But, like I said, I have no proof that he actually said it, so maybe I heard it wrong.
What, then, was the reason for trading Richardson? I thought I'd heard them say that they thought he was a talented back but that he didn't fit the scheme they wanted to run. You're telling me now that it wasn't that he didn't fit the scheme. So what was the benefit of trading him, then. If he was a talented back who didn't "not fit the scheme", how does the team benefit from trading him? According to what you quoted above, Banner thought he was a really good player and would have done well in Cleveland. Chud says it wasn't that he didn't fit the system. Yet, Chud felt that the team would be better without him. Why? How were they better without him?
When I thought they traded him because he didn't fit the system, I disagreed with it, but it made sense to me. Trading away a RB who you think is really good player, would do well there, and fits the system makes less sense to me.
Tour2ma: Yep, I'm happy to give Chud credit for getting it wrong first and then getting it right on his next try.
-
TCPO,
You have evidence and I don't, so I'll have to defer to you. I'm positive I heard Chudzinski say that Richardson didn't fit the type of offense they wanted to run and I have the emails that I sent to friends right after I heard that. But, like I said, I have no proof that he actually said it, so maybe I heard it wrong.
What, then, was the reason for trading Richardson? I thought I'd heard them say that they thought he was a talented back but that he didn't fit the scheme they wanted to run. You're telling me now that it wasn't that he didn't fit the scheme. So what was the benefit of trading him, then. If he was a talented back who didn't "not fit the scheme", how does the team benefit from trading him? According to what you quoted above, Banner thought he was a really good player and would have done well in Cleveland. Chud says it wasn't that he didn't fit the system. Yet, Chud felt that the team would be better without him. Why? How were they better without him?
When I thought they traded him because he didn't fit the system, I disagreed with it, but it made sense to me. Trading away a RB who you think is really good player, would do well there, and fits the system makes less sense to me.
Tour2ma: Yep, I'm happy to give Chud credit for getting it wrong first and then getting it right on his next try.
TCPO,
You have evidence and I don't, so I'll have to defer to you. I'm positive I heard Chudzinski say that Richardson didn't fit the type of offense they wanted to run and I have the emails that I sent to friends right after I heard that. But, like I said, I have no proof that he actually said it, so maybe I heard it wrong.
What, then, was the reason for trading Richardson? I thought I'd heard them say that they thought he was a talented back but that he didn't fit the scheme they wanted to run. You're telling me now that it wasn't that he didn't fit the scheme. So what was the benefit of trading him, then. If he was a talented back who didn't "not fit the scheme", how does the team benefit from trading him? According to what you quoted above, Banner thought he was a really good player and would have done well in Cleveland. Chud says it wasn't that he didn't fit the system. Yet, Chud felt that the team would be better without him. Why? How were they better without him?
When I thought they traded him because he didn't fit the system, I disagreed with it, but it made sense to me. Trading away a RB who you think is really good player, would do well there, and fits the system makes less sense to me.
Tour2ma: Yep, I'm happy to give Chud credit for getting it wrong first and then getting it right on his next try.
Richardson was traded because the deal was too good to pass up. Richardson is what he is, a shot yardage back that lacks any breakaway skills. As one Browns source put it, "We were getting killed when we made that deal, but now people are seeing the same things we saw in him. There is a lot to like about Trent. He's solid, dependable, hard-working. The problem is that he's not explosive."
This statement really sums up how Richardson was viewed by the Browns brass:
"I saw him score on a 1-yard touchdown in his first game there (a 27-7 win over San Francisco) and the announcer said that was why the Colts traded for him. And all I could think was that play was right in Trent's wheelhouse. He'll make those plays for you all day. But when you need seven yards, he'll still get you three."
Richardson is a nice guy, a hard nosed player and a good player to have on your team when you need three yards. But he's not first-round material and the fact that this FO was able to get a first rounder for a guy averaging less than 3 YPC is a miracle. It is literally the only redeeming quality of this FO at the current moment.
We were able to lose 10+ games with Richardson last season. He wasn't needed here.
It had nothing to do with the scheme. It had everything to do with the fact that he's not really a superstar player.
-
That's very reasonable. Personally, with the close losses and the lack of rushing TDs this season, I think that the Browns could have used a short-yardage back. Is he a superstar player? No. Did he turn out to be a good #3 overall pick? No. But do I think what the Browns got for him is necessarily worth more? No. The year that Richardson got drafted, the Browns had two first round picks that were higher than the Colts pick in the next draft will be. They got Richardson and Weeden. Everyone is kind of assuming that a high pick equals a good pick, but it doesn't. Could it? Sure. So could a late pick. As someone else posted earlier, Lombardi doesn't have a great drafting record. I think the best we can say about the Richardson trade right now is that we still don't know how it will pan out. What we do know is that the Browns weren't able to rush as effectively this year as they did last year. If the Colts pick turns out to be some superstud that we wouldn't have gotten otherwise, I'll be happy to say, "I was so wrong! That trade and pick were genius!" Until then, the only result I know for sure is that the Browns got worse at running the ball.
-
That's very reasonable. Personally, with the close losses and the lack of rushing TDs this season, I think that the Browns could have used a short-yardage back. Is he a superstar player? No. Did he turn out to be a good #3 overall pick? No. But do I think what the Browns got for him is necessarily worth more? No. The year that Richardson got drafted, the Browns had two first round picks that were higher than the Colts pick in the next draft will be. They got Richardson and Weeden. Everyone is kind of assuming that a high pick equals a good pick, but it doesn't. Could it? Sure. So could a late pick. As someone else posted earlier, Lombardi doesn't have a great drafting record. I think the best we can say about the Richardson trade right now is that we still don't know how it will pan out. What we do know is that the Browns weren't able to rush as effectively this year as they did last year. If the Colts pick turns out to be some superstud that we wouldn't have gotten otherwise, I'll be happy to say, "I was so wrong! That trade and pick were genius!" Until then, the only result I know for sure is that the Browns got worse at running the ball.
That's very reasonable. Personally, with the close losses and the lack of rushing TDs this season, I think that the Browns could have used a short-yardage back. Is he a superstar player? No. Did he turn out to be a good #3 overall pick? No. But do I think what the Browns got for him is necessarily worth more? No. The year that Richardson got drafted, the Browns had two first round picks that were higher than the Colts pick in the next draft will be. They got Richardson and Weeden. Everyone is kind of assuming that a high pick equals a good pick, but it doesn't. Could it? Sure. So could a late pick. As someone else posted earlier, Lombardi doesn't have a great drafting record. I think the best we can say about the Richardson trade right now is that we still don't know how it will pan out. What we do know is that the Browns weren't able to rush as effectively this year as they did last year. If the Colts pick turns out to be some superstud that we wouldn't have gotten otherwise, I'll be happy to say, "I was so wrong! That trade and pick were genius!" Until then, the only result I know for sure is that the Browns got worse at running the ball.
Which is a completely fair and reasonable assumption.
We don't know yet what Richardson has yielded. If we turn that pick into a franchise QB then it will be worth it. Anything less, fans may be upset.
I wouldn't say we've gotten worse at running the ball, because our backs have nearly the same YPC as TR does on the season. We've certainly run the ball a lot less, but the effectiveness for the most part is still there.
I think the plan all along was to throw the ball 40 times per game to fully see what our passing game had. Those were the directives.
-
Agreed. And that's the part I don't really understand. How do you insist on throwing the ball so much and then blame your lack of success on the fact that you didn't yet have a QB? To me, that seems contradictory. If you don't have a QB, maybe don't throw the ball so much.
A few years ago, the Broncos put Tebow in at QB. They knew then what everyone else has since SLOWLY accepted: the guy can't pass very well. So you know what they did? They passed less. Now obviously Tebow was an athletic guy who was good at running the ball, and the Browns obviously weren't in that same situation, but there's a useful idea there. Recognize your team's limitations and adjust accordingly. Don't ignore those limitations during the games and then blame your lack of success on them afterward. If you know you don't have a QB, then don't center your offense around passing a lot.
-
Agreed. And that's the part I don't really understand. How do you insist on throwing the ball so much and then blame your lack of success on the fact that you didn't yet have a QB? To me, that seems contradictory. If you don't have a QB, maybe don't throw the ball so much.
A few years ago, the Broncos put Tebow in at QB. They knew then what everyone else has since SLOWLY accepted: the guy can't pass very well. So you know what they did? They passed less. Now obviously Tebow was an athletic guy who was good at running the ball, and the Browns obviously weren't in that same situation, but there's a useful idea there. Recognize your team's limitations and adjust accordingly. Don't ignore those limitations during the games and then blame your lack of success on them afterward. If you know you don't have a QB, then don't center your offense around passing a lot.
I'm starting to think your just fucking around.Agreed. And that's the part I don't really understand. How do you insist on throwing the ball so much and then blame your lack of success on the fact that you didn't yet have a QB? To me, that seems contradictory. If you don't have a QB, maybe don't throw the ball so much.
They could 'not' run the ball at a consistent level so you have to _______?
hint: the answer isnt punt or kick field goals.
Did you not see the shit JMJ called RB's this year. we had grandpa, thumbs and a muppet
-
I was basing my response on TCPO's premise that the Browns were not less effective at running this year than in 2012, they just didn't do it as much. Either they were ineffective at running in 2013 or they weren't. If they were, it made little sense to trade Richardson away (regardless of whether or not you think he's good; the rushing was better when he was there in 2012). If they weren't less effective at running in 2013, then they should have run more. It can't be both ways.
-
Richardson was shit we traded the turd and got a new fresh steamy pile of old shit through FA.
What's to discuss our rb's suck(ed) both year's?
TCPO is right in saying if you need a yd trents your man but he won't pick up chunks.
-
And you don't think there were times this year when the Browns could have used a yard... or a rushing TD?
-
And you don't think there were times this year when the Browns could have used a yard... or a rushing TD?
And you don't think there were times this year when the Browns could have used a yard... or a rushing TD?
I'm sure there were but we still lost 10 games with him and we swapped a 1st round pick for a guy averaging 3 yards per carry for his career.
Great short yardage back but not worth the first round pick Indy gave us for him even if they win the super bowl.
-
I was basing my response on TCPO's premise that the Browns were not less effective at running this year than in 2012, they just didn't do it as much. Either they were ineffective at running in 2013 or they weren't. If they were, it made little sense to trade Richardson away (regardless of whether or not you think he's good; the rushing was better when he was there in 2012). If they weren't less effective at running in 2013, then they should have run more. It can't be both ways.
I was basing my response on TCPO's premise that the Browns were not less effective at running this year than in 2012, they just didn't do it as much. Either they were ineffective at running in 2013 or they weren't. If they were, it made little sense to trade Richardson away (regardless of whether or not you think he's good; the rushing was better when he was there in 2012). If they weren't less effective at running in 2013, then they should have run more. It can't be both ways.
It can be both ways. It's not black and white. They were equally as effective in 2013 as they were in 2012 which, is to say, not very. I would say a YPC around 4-4.3 for the season would be considered effective.
Richardson wasn't extremely effective in 2012, therefore he was available to trade. The Colts offered a first round pick, and he was gone.
Trent was traded, then Hoyer was put in the following week. Hardly a coincidence. I don't believe they expected Hoyer to get hurt Week 5. What they did expect was to have Hoyer throw the ball 40 times per game to see which receivers and TE's would stay and which wouldn't.
However, Hoyer went down and we got stuck with two less than stellar QB's, and so we stuck to the plan.
-
Again, I don't know that we can say definitively that Hoyer was put in Week 3 as part of some unfolding plan. Chud (or someone) made the decision to start Weeden entering the regular season. Weeden got hurt in Week 2 and some arrangement had to be made for a Week 3 QB. Everyone keeps acting like Hoyer was the plan all along. Hoyer played in preseason and Chud (or whoever) didn't make the call to start him in Week 1.
-
i'm sorry, but i like haslam. he is a no Fing around guy. you got hired to do this and you didn't so bye bye.
also i really doubt chud had anything to do with the roster moves. he could have given the FO guys his input but he called out weeden as the starter. and where is turner in all of this or horton as well?
QB genious with aikman under his wing? name me another QB he has groomed to be a pro-bowler besides rivers, and he is playing above his head w/o turner being there. horton hears who? dude was a big disappointment and was hoping for the days of ryan again.
haslam is bottom line biz man and this is what i've dreamed of all along for 2 decades now. you got a foundation, you got talent but you can't coach for shit letting 50% of our games to be lost in the 2nd half when we led at the half?
see ya GOOBER!!
-
i'm sorry, but i like haslam. he is a no Fing around guy. you got hired to do this and you didn't so bye bye.
also i really doubt chud had anything to do with the roster moves. he could have given the FO guys his input but he called out weeden as the starter. and where is turner in all of this or horton as well?
QB genious with aikman under his wing? name me another QB he has groomed to be a pro-bowler besides rivers, and he is playing above his head w/o turner being there. horton hears who? dude was a big disappointment and was hoping for the days of ryan again.
haslam is bottom line biz man and this is what i've dreamed of all along for 2 decades now. you got a foundation, you got talent but you can't coach for shit letting 50% of our games to be lost in the 2nd half when we led at the half?
see ya GOOBER!!
I like Rob Ryan just because I like watching him on the sidelines. And he also buys the fans beer after wins.i'm sorry, but i like haslam. he is a no Fing around guy. you got hired to do this and you didn't so bye bye.
also i really doubt chud had anything to do with the roster moves. he could have given the FO guys his input but he called out weeden as the starter. and where is turner in all of this or horton as well?
QB genious with aikman under his wing? name me another QB he has groomed to be a pro-bowler besides rivers, and he is playing above his head w/o turner being there. horton hears who? dude was a big disappointment and was hoping for the days of ryan again.
haslam is bottom line biz man and this is what i've dreamed of all along for 2 decades now. you got a foundation, you got talent but you can't coach for shit letting 50% of our games to be lost in the 2nd half when we led at the half?
see ya GOOBER!!
Besides that, I'd be fairly confident in saying he's a better coach than his brother, but he hasn't had the HC opp yet.
Top bad he isn't friends with Lombardi (or associated with Bill
, he's a DC I'd like to see as HC. -
Ya know, I was really pissed about the trade yesterday. But hell maybe this is the shit the browns need to turn it around. I mean good grief we've tried everything else so why not fire a coach after one season? The Richardson trade seemed Retarded too but it turned out to be a steal. Maybe this rash decision will work too.
-
Again, I don't know that we can say definitively that Hoyer was put in Week 3 as part of some unfolding plan. Chud (or someone) made the decision to start Weeden entering the regular season. Weeden got hurt in Week 2 and some arrangement had to be made for a Week 3 QB. Everyone keeps acting like Hoyer was the plan all along. Hoyer played in preseason and Chud (or whoever) didn't make the call to start him in Week 1.
Again, I don't know that we can say definitively that Hoyer was put in Week 3 as part of some unfolding plan. Chud (or someone) made the decision to start Weeden entering the regular season. Weeden got hurt in Week 2 and some arrangement had to be made for a Week 3 QB. Everyone keeps acting like Hoyer was the plan all along. Hoyer played in preseason and Chud (or whoever) didn't make the call to start him in Week 1.
I sincerely doubt Brian Hoyer was brought in to be the backup QB. After everything Lombardi said about him being a starting caliber QB, it doesn't add up.
Weeden was endorsed by Chud, and it cost him his job.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login